I've Got Something To Say-Best Practices

With both, knowing and understanding them, the choice to adopt them is yours.​Knowledge really is power in the grande scheme of things.​When you've got something to say that's based in years of lived and learned experience, education, and observation - sharing it is the best way forward.

With so many non profit organizations currently going through restructures at this very moment, I thought it appropriate to provide a bit of context around the "why" and wanted to also offer up a few different structures your organization might want to think about as you embark on that journey. After all, if things don't change, how can we in good faith say that as non profit leaders, we're adapting to the ever rapidly changing environment? After all, organizations typically embark on that path when they feel compelled to respond to major problems or opportunities.

For starters, there's absolutely nothing wrong with an organization that's undergoing a restructure. Listen, in order to continue to grow, adapt, and be best prepared for the world writ large in today's environment, organizations must stay nimble, flexible, and adaptable. I'll be the first the admit that from an employee standpoint, restructures can create a bit of anxiety and discomfort, however, the truth of the matter is that while the above is true for many - it doesn't change what's needed. And, as organizational leaders, we've got to balance both, the diversity of our staff make up and the rapidly changing world around us. So, in essence, my theory is that restructure doesn't have to be scary. However, good organizational change management is a must. I need to say that again! Good organizational change management is a must. So, if that's just not your thing (and don't feel bad about that since there are specialist who are equipped to help), my suggestion is that you save everyone the heartache and pain of poor process and management and hire yourself someone well versed in this. You won't regret it!

For those of you wondering about the variety of models out there, I wanted to share just a few to get your minds thinking. My advice is that you should do extensive research world wide to see the different frameworks folks are using in their attempts at creating structures that are built to sustain while ensuring that that very structure will allow for staff empowerment, engagement, productivity, and advancement to name a few. Sure, your considerations list is probably (or will be) gigantic. However, no good work ever comes without deep contemplation and ultimately some level of sacrifice whether that be time or anything else for that matter.

So, on to the good stuff...

Finding a system of roles and relationships that feels good is an ongoing, universal struggle. As a long time manager, I can attest to the fact that managers rarely face well-defined problems with clear-cut solutions. To the contrary, managers actually confront enduring structural dilemmas and tough trade-offs that usually don't have answers continuously. To that point, there are a few things that you and your organization would want to be thinking about before diving into a restructure of any sort as it relates to your current organizational set up.

Differentiation Versus Integration

Gap Versus Overlap

Underuse Versus Overload

Lack of Clarity Versus Lack of Creativity

Excessive Autonomy Versus Excessive Interdependence

Too Loose Versus Too Tight

Goalless Versus Goalbound

Irresponsible Versus Unresponsive

I'm just saying, there's a lot to consider when thinking about roles and relationships within the context of restructure.

Structural Configurations to DigestThat's right! To digest. There are so many ways to think about structure and yet, not every type of structure is going to work for every organization. So, make sure you do your homework! In the meanwhile, here are a few examples that exist out in the world. This isn't meant to tell you everything. Just a summary of the things I found interesting!

​Simple Structure

Most businesses begin as simple structures with only two levels, strategic and operations. In this instance, coordination happens through direct supervision and oversight. If we think about what we'd consider "mom and pop" shops, mom and pop would be the ones under this structure to exercise total authority over daily operations.

Most young non profits often start here. However, as they grow in size and depth, this simple structure almost always struggles to manage the ever growing complexity and so conversations of restructure begin. See what I mean? It's inevitable if you're working in a start up organization that's thriving!

Machine Bureaucracy

In this model, important decisions are made at the strategic level and not to our surprise, day-to-day operations are controlled by managers and standardized procedures. Under this model, there's a large support staff with a pretty big technostructure. There are often times layers between those that work on top strategy and those working at the operational levels.

One of the key challenges with this model is keeping staff motivated and satisfied at the operational level. Repetitive work doesn't keep anyone's attention and yet in this model, that's exactly what folks are doing. Work that is repetitive and standardized with lots of procedures.

One consideration for folks using or thinking about this model is that it is believed that under this framework, offering too much creativity and personal challenge could undermine consistency and uniformity. Let me be the first to say that in 2016, the current generation will have a big problem with a structure like this because Millennials just don't work this way!

Professional Bureaucracy

In this model, the operating center is large relative to other structural parts. Few managerial levels exist between the strategic level and others. And so, in this instance, a more flat decentralized organization is created. Control relies heavily on professional training and indoctrination. Under this model, your non profit professionals are insulated from formal interference, freeing them to apply their own expertise.

What I love the most about this model is that by freeing up highly trained experts to do what they do best, it produces many benefits. However, it also leads to challenges of coordination and quality control.

This model has historically responded slowly to external change. Often, reforms will produce little impact because the change might be viewed as a distraction.

The result of having a model like this is that individuals in the organization might strive to be at the forefront of their specialty, however, the organization as a whole might change at a very slow and even glacial pace.

Divisionalized Form

In this model, the bulk of the work is done in quasi-autonomous units or teams. While divisionalized structures offer economies of scale, resources, and responsiveness while controlling economic risk, it also creates other tensions.

Cat-and-mouse game between headquarters and divisions often times create tensions. In essence, headquarters might want oversight while divisional managers make it clear that they don't want to be controlled by headquarters. The other risk ran with this structure is either the perception or the reality that headquarters loses touch with operations and field staff.

This structure might become unwieldy unless goals are measurable and reliable vertical information systems are in place. That's for sure!

Adhocracy

Adhocracy for those of you new to this, is a loose, flexible, self-renewing organic form tied together mostly through lateral means. This type of structure is usually found in a diverse, freewheeling environment.

It functions as an organizational tent. In essence, it tends to exploit benefits that structural designers traditionally regarded as liabilities. More candidly, it tends to have ambiguous authority structures, unclear objectives, and contradictory assignments of responsibility. These things would almost certainly legitimize controversies and challenge traditions. However, incoherence and indecision often time fosters exploration, self-evaluation and learning.

The good thing here is that inconsistencies and contradictions in an adhocracy allow for a balance between opposites that ultimately serves to protect an organization from falling into an either-or kind of trap.

The bottom line is that these types of structures are often times found in conditions of turbulence and rapid change.

A lot to digest, I know. But if your organization is going through a restructure right now, then you'll be able to relate the most. Do your homework and make sure you fully understand the complexities found within the varying types of structures that exist out there. While this is only a few bullet points to try and summarize what I found most interesting about just a few structures in existence, doing a deep dive in your research now is going to save you and your staff a lot of suffering later. If you need any help on your research project, let me know! Otherwise, good luck!